Monday, December 23, 2013

It seems the idiot Bateman wrote another article

in which he lies about his first one(among other things).  One of the responses, this one from Tom Kratman:
@ Bateman, since my reply will not post.

It is said of Washington that he could not tell a lie. How odd then that you should quote him after lately claiming that your previous article was about getting weapons from the hands of criminals,
when in that article you made it plain it was about getting weapons from the hands of citizens. Have you no shame? I mean, obviously you lack reason. And, given that you think your legal judgment is superior to the Supreme Court’s, patently you lack humility. But have you no shame?

Do you think that in Washington's letter to the New York Legislature - from which, whether you know it or not, you quoted - that he intended that soldiers should be as unruly as civilians? That they should question legitimate orders? That they should vote on which orders they will obey and which they won’t? That they should mutiny? In what senses, then, did he mean they remained citizens? Were you a true historian you might have spared yourself some embarrassment in noting that he referred to their coming status after the war, and not their right to act as citizens while serving. Do you imagine that Washington intended that the soldiers vote on crossing the Delaware? Then what do you imagine he meant? Oh, please come up with something; your interpretation of the second amendment just left us all panting for more ahistorical nonsense.

You are a commissioned officer. You give up certain rights as a matter of law: see, eg, Art 88, UCMJ. This is not compatible with normal citizenship, but is necessary to good order, discipline, and trust in the armed forces. Were you not aware of this? You also give up certain things as a matter of custom and common sense. Among these, you a) should not have lied about the gravamen of your previous essay, as you have. In doing so you have thereby demonstrated vast lack of integrity, also incompatible with service as an officer. Moreover, b) you should keep your nose out of highly charged political questions that tend to raise distrust of the armed forces and especially of the only one with the power to actually launch a coup, the Army

To quote from his first article, which he claims was about a 'rational, peaceful, non-confiscatory way of removing guns from the hands of criminals':
2. We will pry your gun from your cold, dead, fingers. That is because I am willing to wait until you die, hopefully of natural causes. Guns, except for the three approved categories, cannot be inherited. When you die your weapons must be turned into the local police department, which will then destroy them. (Weapons of historical significance will be de-milled, but may be preserved.)
3. Police departments are no longer allowed to sell or auction weapons used in crimes after the cases have been closed. (That will piss off some cops, since they really need this money. But you know what they need more? Less violence and death. By continuing the process of weapon recirculation, they are only making their jobs -- or the jobs of some other cops -- harder.)
4. We will submit a new tax on ammunition. In the first two years it will be 400 percent of the current retail cost of that type of ammunition. (Exemptions for the ammo used by the approved weapons.) Thereafter it will increase by 20 percent per year.
5. We will initiate a nationwide "buy-back" program, effective immediately, with the payouts coming from the DoD budget. This buy-back program will start purchasing weapons at 200 percent of their face value the first year, 150 percent the second year, 100 percent the third year. Thereafter there will be a 10 year pause, at which point the guns can be sold to the government at 10 percent of their value for the next 50 years.
6. The major gun manufactures of the United States, less those who create weapons for the federal government and the armed forces, will be bought out by the United States of America, for our own damned good.
Bateman, you're a liar and a disgrace to that uniform.  And if there's not I'm wondering why there's not a UCMJ investigation going on about you.

I should note that he accuses the NRA of inciting death threats: Personally, I think a little bit less of an organization like the NRA, which incites their members to threaten rape and murder and the abduction of babies.
Were I in the NRA organization I'd have the lawyers looking into this right now.  "Mr. Bateman, I am G. Esquire Nightmare, attorney for the NRA.  You have accused my clients of inciting death threats.  Let's see your proof.  NOW."

No comments: